Forum:Making a consistent format for articles
Lately I have noticed that the format for some articles are inconsistent because our editors do not know how the article should look like, but this is because we never actually decided how an article should be set up. First of all, for the names of films we sometimes bold it, and sometimes italicize it. This also goes for video games, themes, and sometimes even minifigures and sets. Voting for film names Italicize film names # Traditionally, film names are put in italics as they are stand alone works --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 16:12, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Per CJC. 16:51, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Would this include books and TV series too? 03:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC) #:Yes --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 16:41, March 9, 2011 (UTC) #::I don't think so - books and TV series have set numbers so they should be left normal. 17:04, March 9, 2011 (UTC) #:::I'm under the impression he means, for example Harry Potter books and the Clone Wars series, not the LEGO ones --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 17:09, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 18:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Bold film names Leave it normal # Lego lord 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) Voting for video games names Italicize video game names # As per above --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 16:12, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # (See here) 16:20, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # 03:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 18:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # 17:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC) Bold video game names Leave it normal # Lego lord 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # - Down with vandalism 04:29, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Voting for minifigure names Italicize minifigure names Bold minifigure names Leave it normal # Lego lord 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 16:12, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # 16:20, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Why wouldn't it be left normal? I've never seen a minifigure name with any special formatting 03:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 18:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # 17:22, March 10, 2011 (UTC) Voting for set names Italicize set names Bold set names # Only on the opening paragraph though, otherwise if we use 'normal' we will get lots of pointless edits where users unbold the set names. 16:53, March 8, 2011 (UTC) ::I think all votes here exclude the fact that the name from every subject is bolded in the opening section. 17:00, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :::Yes. 17:23, March 10, 2011 (UTC) :::Ah I see, I've changed my vote. 17:48, March 12, 2011 (UTC) Leave it normal # Lego lord 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 16:12, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # 16:20, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # 03:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC) #I agree with SKP, but since that applies, I concur with the others. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 18:55, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # Only bold at the beginning of articles. 21:33, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # Per BF2. 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC) -------- Second of all, I have noticed that some set articles make it look like real life or something, such as 7977 Seabed Strider on March 5,http://lego.wikia.com/index.php?title=7977_Seabed_Strider&oldid=456908 it says "The Seabed Strider or the walker included in this set is able to move through the city of Atlantis at a quick speed.", though this is a set, it can't really move at quick speed. So I think we should put it in quotations like "the Seabed Strider or walker included in this set is able to "move" through the city of Atlantis at "quick speed", since of course it can't actually move at quick speed. Voting for adding or removing quotations Add quotations # Lego lord 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) Remove quotations # To many quotations will really just get confusing. # I was tempted to delete them all. - Down with vandalism 04:30, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # Exactly per NHL below, "at quick speed" is information about the vehicle in the storyline, not as a set, so that belongs into the background section. 17:02, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # Agreed, per Cjc. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 18:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC) # Yep. Annoying. No need for a made up words and phrases. 21:34, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Comments * I'd be taking a "use as necessary" approach, it may be good for some articles, but in others it might not work. But, the "move at quick speeds" is exactly why we have a background section for both licensed and non-licensed sets- in the Atlantis storyline, that's what the speeder is- a fast-moving vehicle, so that information belongs in the background. 03:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC) -------- Third of all, I think we should have minifigure articles as if they are a toy, and not a character by moving all background information into a/the "Background" section. Voting for background information Move it in the "Background" section # Lego lord 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Background information should go into the background section, and haven't we already got a forum for this? 16:20, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # Per Samdo. 16:55, March 8, 2011 (UTC) # -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 18:54, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Keep it in one section Comments * I'm not getting the voting sections. One section would be the background section. Also, I see no harm by saying "Stormtrooper is a minifigure from the Star Wars theme. They worked for the Empire" or something, as it helps give a bit of info if you are just skimming the article. * How many times do we have to say this? Background is character information, description is toy information. The lead section is just a short introductory sentence, so like Kingcjc, I don't see what's wrong with having a little of both in there if you want to, though I still think any character information in the lead should be from an "out of universe" perspective. 03:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC) ::Here's the harm-there's wasted words. Just say "Stormtrooper is a Star Wars minifigure". 17:37, March 9, 2011 (UTC) * Well, wasted words is a matter of opinion. Anyway, what is the use of the keep it in one section? That is what the background section would be, one section? :S --- Why So Serious? -- Kingcjc 19:29, March 10, 2011 (UTC) ::I agree with BobaFett2, it is a waste of words. Lego lord 19:30, March 10, 2011 (UTC) ------ Fourth of all, I think that all minifigure part articles should all have the same format, like this: :"X" indicates the part number :"MINIFIGURENAME" indicates the part is used for a certain minifigure :"COLOUR" indicates the colour of the part ::"Part X has COLOUR torso, COLOUR right and left arms, COLOUR hands and is used for MINIFIGURENAME." If this isn't the format you want it to be like, then please comment on what you think it should look like in the "Discussion" section below, and once it is decided on how it should look like, then we should consistently use that format on very single minifigure part article. Fifth of all, the variation names of the minifigure names are inconsistent. Perhaps we should decide here? Fifth of all, I've noticed that it has been inconsistent about how we type in "Toys R Us", or is it "Toys "R" Us", or is it "Toys R' Us"? How about we decide in the discussion section below? Voting Use Toys Я Us Use Toys "R" Us # When describing it on their site, they use it. (Plus, since people seem to love comparing us to other sites, wikipedia does it) --- ''rants, moans and stuff -- Kingcjc 17:50, March 12, 2011 (UTC) # ---- We're in the darkest hour 17:51, March 12, 2011 (UTC) # 12:26, March 13, 2011 (UTC) # Per Kingcjc. 12:39, March 13, 2011 (UTC) Use Toys'R Us Use Toys 'R' Us Use Toys R Us Comments * Whatever they're officially called. 01:26, March 13, 2011 (UTC) * I went to Toys "R" Us today, and it has the "" symbols. ---- We're in the darkest hour 02:18, March 13, 2011 (UTC) Discussion General We need to decide how other names for the same subject should be stylised (eg "Minifigurename1, also known as Minifigurename2 / Minifigurename2 / Minifigurename2 ..."). And can you give an example for how differently setnames, minifigurenames, and especially film- and videogamenames are stylised? 16:20, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :: They are commonly like "LEGO Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues:". Voting for minifigures part names * Strong oppose above suggestion. We already have a naming policy for parts- use the design ID. Why should minifigure parts be an exception? 04:00, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Voting for video games names It depends. If a video game has only one item number (as 55000 LEGO Universe), it should not be bolded/italicized in any way. If it hasn't a set number in it's title (like LEGO Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures) and has it's item numbers for the different versions included on the article, it should be italicized. 16:20, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :All the video games have ID numbers, look at Brickset.com, for instance, LEGO Batman has a different ID number for each console. - Down with vandalism 04:41, March 9, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, LEGO Universe only has one number (55000) and since all others seem to have multiple set numbers, it's okay to have them italic. 16:58, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Variation names I think the variation names should go by the sets that they appear in, and not just completely random names, but if we decide something else I'm fine with it, just as long as it is consistent. That's what I've been trying to do for half a year now. :P * Can't we stick to the three or so forums we already have set up talking about video game names, ie somewhere like here? :) 03:58, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Joining the project To avoid arguments between users who don't care to make things completely consistent, and those who do, I have created a project. See Brickipedia:Project consistency for details. ---- We're in the darkest hour 02:20, March 13, 2011 (UTC) * I am opposed to the idea that only members of the group can decide how these articles are formatted, and also, surely this is just so you don't have to listen to the opinions of those who feel we should allow some creative freedom instead of excessively structuring articles. --- rants, moans and stuff -- Kingcjc 08:48, March 13, 2011 (UTC) * If by consistency this merely means cleaning articles up according to anything approved by MoS proposals, then that's completely fine, but if it's anything else, this project should be shut down. 09:54, March 13, 2011 (UTC) * Kingcjc, that is not what I was intending at all, I thought you said it was fine for people to restructure articles to make them consistent, didn't you? Nighthawk Leader, I made this group so others who wouldn't really care to make things consistent, such as Kingcjc, can discuss about how articles should be set up, anyone can discuss if they want to. I made this group so there won't be as many as arguments. ---- We're in the darkest hour 14:51, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ** I want things consistent, but not identical to the last word. Creativity is a virtue that we need to ensure stays alive and is not staved away by excessive bureaucracy and authoritarian behaviour when it comes to article. As Churchill said; "If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law." --- rants, moans and stuff -- Kingcjc 15:09, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::As said above-this should not exist. As such, I am deleting it. We care-we just don't believe that every single bit must be the same. 15:11, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::No, please don't. Only people who want to can change it. ---- We're in the darkest hour 15:13, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::What your group does is claim that SOME people don't want to. Which is wrong. We just disagree with your viewpoint. 15:14, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::What gives you the right to delete it? What also gives you the right to delete Bubbubbub's votes? Don't be spoiled with your tools. ---- We're in the darkest hour 15:16, March 13, 2011 (UTC) *Calm down ladies --- rants, moans and stuff -- Kingcjc 15:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::LOL ---- We're in the darkest hour 15:18, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::You claim that I am spoiled? What I am doing is getting rid of something that excludes, raises people above others, and makes people who don't agree with you seem dumb. That goes against Brickipedia's policy. What gives me the right to delete Bubbubbub's votes? Anyone has that right since he doesn't contribute. What gives me the right to delete it? Months and months of work-and community approval. 15:19, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::Restored. We should vote on this before it is deleted. There are people who support it as well as theere are ones who oppose it. 15:20, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::This isn't deletion policy on a bad page. This is totally different. 15:21, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::No one said it was, that's your opinion. Per Samdo994, everyone has a right, he probably doesn't contribute because he is afraid of you BobaFett2. ---- We're in the darkest hour 15:22, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I never said it is a bad page, but just deleting projects in the favor of one or two users is not appropriate. And we already have a forum for deleting the votes of users, so keep it there. 15:23, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::::And again yoy insult me. It has NOTHING to do with being afraid of me. When people come here to spam, we don't say "they're just afraid of X". He did practically the same thing with blogs. 15:24, March 13, 2011 (UTC) * >_> Keep the slagging matches for IRC. <_< --- rants, moans and stuff -- Kingcjc 15:25, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::That's not insulting you, calm down. I see what you mean but technically his blogs aren't spam, and let's talk about this project not him, sorry for bringing him up. ---- We're in the darkest hour 15:28, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::I bolded in order to emphasize a fact and make it more obvious. His blogs are, in all technicality, spam-they do not contribute to the wiki and may cause people to believe false information. And it was insulting me: "Don't be spoiled with your tools." It makes no sense grammatically and it is...well...not exactly nice. 20:21, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::Why believes Bubbubbub's blogs? They like them but they don't believe that they are true. ---- We're in the darkest hour 20:38, March 13, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::People come here for information. They may wander onto the wrong page and end up at his blog. And they may believe it. Then Brickipedia has given false info because of a user. 20:39, March 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::::Perhaps, but still... his blogs aren't bad. ---- We're in the darkest hour 20:40, March 13, 2011 (UTC)